What do you think?
Rate this book
Parent-Babble: How Parents Can Recover from Fifty Years of Bad Expert Advice (Volume 15)
Best-selling parenting expert John Rosemond invalidates the psychobabble of contemporary parenting theories and deconstructs what’s wrong with American parenting. His prescription for a new/old philosophy of parent–child relationships offers solutions to raising happier, healthier children.
If you were to stack all the current parenting books on top of one another, the resulting pile would be nearly four times the height of the Freedom Tower. Parenting expert John Rosemond has dubbed this imaginary narrative construction the "Tower of Parent-Babble," and, as was the case with the Tower of Babel, the building blocks of its construction have led to mass confusion with frustrated, anxious, clueless, and stressed-out parents raising spoiled, egocentric, unfocused, and unhappy children.
In Parent-Babble , Rosemond asserts that America has been in the throes of an ever-deepening child-rearing crisis since the 1970s, and he explains how parents have moved away from the child-rearing basics of the 1950s and 1960s to focus on raising children with "high self-esteem."
But what could be wrong with high self-esteem? Plenty, according to Rosemond. High self-esteem is associated with anti-social behavior and little regard for others. In addition, children reared on postmodern psychological parenting theories are 10 times more likely to experience a serious emotional setback by the age of 16 compared with children who grew up in the 50s and 60s. In Parent-Babble , Rosemond deconstructs the faulty theories, points out the "experts" who have led parents astray, and calls for a return to values, a return to civility, and a return to raising healthy, happy, and productive adults.
If you were to stack all the current parenting books on top of one another, the resulting pile would be nearly four times the height of the Freedom Tower. Parenting expert John Rosemond has dubbed this imaginary narrative construction the "Tower of Parent-Babble," and, as was the case with the Tower of Babel, the building blocks of its construction have led to mass confusion with frustrated, anxious, clueless, and stressed-out parents raising spoiled, egocentric, unfocused, and unhappy children.
In Parent-Babble , Rosemond asserts that America has been in the throes of an ever-deepening child-rearing crisis since the 1970s, and he explains how parents have moved away from the child-rearing basics of the 1950s and 1960s to focus on raising children with "high self-esteem."
But what could be wrong with high self-esteem? Plenty, according to Rosemond. High self-esteem is associated with anti-social behavior and little regard for others. In addition, children reared on postmodern psychological parenting theories are 10 times more likely to experience a serious emotional setback by the age of 16 compared with children who grew up in the 50s and 60s. In Parent-Babble , Rosemond deconstructs the faulty theories, points out the "experts" who have led parents astray, and calls for a return to values, a return to civility, and a return to raising healthy, happy, and productive adults.
240 pages, Hardcover
First published October 9, 2012
11 people are currently reading
68 people want to read
About the author
John Rosemond
52 books74 followersJohn Rosemond has worked with families, children, and parents since 1971 in the field of family psychology. In 1971, John earned his masters in psychology from Western Illinois University and was elected to the Phi Kappa Phi National Honor Society. In 1999, his alma mater conferred upon John the Distinguished Alumni Award, given only once per year. Upon acceptance, he gave the commencement address.
From 1971-1979, he worked as a psychologist in Illinois and North Carolina and directed several mental-health programs for children.
From 1980-1990. John was in full-time practice as a family psychologist with Piedmont Psychological Associates in Gastonia.
Presently, his time is devoted to speaking and writing. John is syndicated in approximately 225 newspapers nationwide. He has written eleven best-selling parenting books. He is also one of America’s busiest and most popular speakers and most certainly the busiest and most popular in his field. He’s known for his sound advice, humor and easy, relaxed, engaging style.
In the past few years, John has appeared on numerous national television programs including 20/20, Good Morning America, The View, The Today Show, CNN, and CBS Later Today, as well as numerous print interviews.
All of his professional accomplishments aside, John is quick to remind folks that his real qualifications are that he’s been married to the same woman for over forty years, is the father of two successful adults, and the grandfather of seven children…make that seven well-behaved grandchildren.
From 1971-1979, he worked as a psychologist in Illinois and North Carolina and directed several mental-health programs for children.
From 1980-1990. John was in full-time practice as a family psychologist with Piedmont Psychological Associates in Gastonia.
Presently, his time is devoted to speaking and writing. John is syndicated in approximately 225 newspapers nationwide. He has written eleven best-selling parenting books. He is also one of America’s busiest and most popular speakers and most certainly the busiest and most popular in his field. He’s known for his sound advice, humor and easy, relaxed, engaging style.
In the past few years, John has appeared on numerous national television programs including 20/20, Good Morning America, The View, The Today Show, CNN, and CBS Later Today, as well as numerous print interviews.
All of his professional accomplishments aside, John is quick to remind folks that his real qualifications are that he’s been married to the same woman for over forty years, is the father of two successful adults, and the grandfather of seven children…make that seven well-behaved grandchildren.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
April 16, 2024
"America began veering off a well-worn parenting path in the 1960s. During that very tumultuous decade, radical social progressives advocated sweeping changes in every aspect of American society..."
I wasn't sure of what to expect from Parent-Babble going in. The book is my second from the author, after his 2013 book Making the "Terrible" Twos Terrific!, which I enjoyed. Fortunately, I was pleasantly surprised with this one, too.
The field of child psychology has become a virtual ideological battleground recently. Thousands of different approaches have been forwarded by almost as many people over the last few decades. Everyone from academics, to scientists, to psychologists, to social media influencers has an opinion these days. And often an opinion that has sharply veered away from anything that could be considered common sense. The entire subject has become a minefield...
I'll say right up front that this book will likely rub many ideologically-motivated people the wrong way. A cursory glance at a few of the other reviews here confirms as much.
Author John Rosemond is an American columnist, public speaker, and writer on parenting, with 15 books on the subject. He is also a parenting expert, husband, father, and grandfather.
John Rosemond :
Rosemond has a great writing style that's lively and engaging. This one won't have trouble holding the picky reader's attention. He starts off the book with a bang, and mentions his broad-based beef with the field of psychology and many of its practitioners; Sigmund Freud, among them.
Rosemond is right to criticize Freud. Many people have pointed out that you can't even argue whether Freud was right or wrong, because that would mean debating falsifiable propositions. Not only was Freud not right, he wasn't even wrong . None of what Freud theorizes has ever been backed up by any empirical data of any kind. It is blind hypothesizing.
He also mentions the famous "repressed" memories theory and the uncovering of supposed sexual abuse. Many innocent people were sent to prison over a concept that has no grounding in empirical science.
He takes a broad shot across the bow, and says that ADHD is not a thing. He also says that the proposition that behavior modification works on human beings has never been conclusively proven.
I hadn't made a foray into reading about raising children until just recently, and much of the writing I came across seemed ridiculous. There's lots of overly permissive, airy-fairy nonsense that seems like it is totally detached from reality. Much of the current paradigm around raising kids is punishment-averse to the point of complete impotence.
For example, in a recent book I read, I was told not to even directly address my child when they were doing something wrong; even when they are throwing toys and/or acting violently. The authors of that book proudly proclaimed that the parents should not use the word "you" when addressing the child's bad behaviour. So, instead of saying "I don't want YOU hitting your sister," you should say "I don't like seeing children being hit."
LOL
Somehow this new approach became the orthodoxy in raising children. The quote from the start of the review continues:
Where did this broad shift in parenting styles come from? That's not the way that most of us were raised ourselves. The book answers that question at great length, but Rosemond places the lion's share of the blame at the feet of Thomas Gordon:
Rosemond expands further on Gordon's ideological bent:
Rosemond also takes aim at the self-esteem movement here, citing the famous psychologist Roy Baumeister:
Some more of what the author covers here includes:
• Authority; punishment
• Attachment theory
• Toilet Training
• Adoption
• Spanking
He ties a knot in the book and wraps it up with this bit of writing:
********************
I enjoyed Parent-Babble. I found most of what Rosemond advocates for here to be well-presented and argued.
I would recommend this one to any new parents.
5 stars.
I wasn't sure of what to expect from Parent-Babble going in. The book is my second from the author, after his 2013 book Making the "Terrible" Twos Terrific!, which I enjoyed. Fortunately, I was pleasantly surprised with this one, too.
The field of child psychology has become a virtual ideological battleground recently. Thousands of different approaches have been forwarded by almost as many people over the last few decades. Everyone from academics, to scientists, to psychologists, to social media influencers has an opinion these days. And often an opinion that has sharply veered away from anything that could be considered common sense. The entire subject has become a minefield...
I'll say right up front that this book will likely rub many ideologically-motivated people the wrong way. A cursory glance at a few of the other reviews here confirms as much.
Author John Rosemond is an American columnist, public speaker, and writer on parenting, with 15 books on the subject. He is also a parenting expert, husband, father, and grandfather.
John Rosemond :
Rosemond has a great writing style that's lively and engaging. This one won't have trouble holding the picky reader's attention. He starts off the book with a bang, and mentions his broad-based beef with the field of psychology and many of its practitioners; Sigmund Freud, among them.
Rosemond is right to criticize Freud. Many people have pointed out that you can't even argue whether Freud was right or wrong, because that would mean debating falsifiable propositions. Not only was Freud not right, he wasn't even wrong . None of what Freud theorizes has ever been backed up by any empirical data of any kind. It is blind hypothesizing.
He also mentions the famous "repressed" memories theory and the uncovering of supposed sexual abuse. Many innocent people were sent to prison over a concept that has no grounding in empirical science.
He takes a broad shot across the bow, and says that ADHD is not a thing. He also says that the proposition that behavior modification works on human beings has never been conclusively proven.
I hadn't made a foray into reading about raising children until just recently, and much of the writing I came across seemed ridiculous. There's lots of overly permissive, airy-fairy nonsense that seems like it is totally detached from reality. Much of the current paradigm around raising kids is punishment-averse to the point of complete impotence.
For example, in a recent book I read, I was told not to even directly address my child when they were doing something wrong; even when they are throwing toys and/or acting violently. The authors of that book proudly proclaimed that the parents should not use the word "you" when addressing the child's bad behaviour. So, instead of saying "I don't want YOU hitting your sister," you should say "I don't like seeing children being hit."
LOL
Somehow this new approach became the orthodoxy in raising children. The quote from the start of the review continues:
"...The old ways were demonized as being not just outmoded but bad, unjust, immoral, and harmful. In some cases—America’s general treatment of its nonwhite citizens, for example—that was certainly true. But a few grains of truth were used to make the case for a complete overhaul of society that resulted in the baby being tossed out along with the bathwater. The social reformers promised that if everyone would only climb onto their progressive childrearing bandwagon, all of America’s ills—racism, crime, poverty, gender inequities, mental illness—could be solved.
Of course, the new regime promoted a complete reorganizing and restructuring of society, from the ground up. That fundamental premise drove the demonization of all forms of traditional authority—in government, business, the church, education, corporations, and the military.
And it also undermined the authority of parents in the home."
Where did this broad shift in parenting styles come from? That's not the way that most of us were raised ourselves. The book answers that question at great length, but Rosemond places the lion's share of the blame at the feet of Thomas Gordon:
"...Psychologists such as Thomas Gordon, author of the best-selling parenting book of the 1970s, Parent Effectiveness Training: The Proven Program for Raising Responsible Children, said that the traditional exercise of parental authority was the root cause of all child and adult mental health problems. In fact, Gordon said that the traditional practice of parental authority was the root cause of all social problems, including poverty, war, and racism. This doctrine was a prime example of the utopianism that defined the era. In effect, Gordon proposed that man and society could be perfected if children were raised according to his immaculate formula.
Humility was not one of Gordon’s attributes.
The old parenting plan, one that parents had used for hundreds of years, emphasized that parents should raise children who would become responsible members of society. The new plan emphasized the responsibility of parents to ensure their children’s happiness and material success. The centerpiece of this new parenting ethos was a new term: high self-esteem. Suddenly, the child and his or her supposed emotional needs became the be-all and end-all of the parenting process.
Just as suddenly, things began going downhill for parents, children, families, schools, communities, and culture. The way children are raised defines what a culture will look like in thirty or so years. Do you think American culture is on the skids? Do you think America was a more civil, polite place fifty years ago than it is today? I do, on both counts."
Rosemond expands further on Gordon's ideological bent:
"Gordon thought that his family model represented more than just a new approach to household relationships. He saw it as a prototype that could transform humanity and produce a worldwide, violence-free utopia:
'Democratic families are peaceful families, and when there are enough democratic families, we will have a society that rejects violence and finds warfare unacceptable.'"
Rosemond also takes aim at the self-esteem movement here, citing the famous psychologist Roy Baumeister:
"From 1970 to 2000, more than fifteen thousand articles were written by various scholars, all claiming that high self-esteem was linked to all manner of positive outcomes. In 2003, the Association for Psychological Science asked professor Roy Baumeister of Florida State University to review this body of literature. He concluded that, for the most part, the research was badly flawed: Only two hundred of the fifteen thousand studies met his rigorous criteria. After reviewing those two hundred, Baumeister concluded that high self-esteem did not live up to its press. It did not improve grades or career achievement, lower alcohol use, or reduce violence. In fact, he found that highly aggressive, violent people tend to think very highly of themselves. Baumeister, a former believer in high self-esteem, is quoted as saying that his own findings were “the biggest disappointment of my career.”
Some more of what the author covers here includes:
• Authority; punishment
• Attachment theory
• Toilet Training
• Adoption
• Spanking
He ties a knot in the book and wraps it up with this bit of writing:
********************
I enjoyed Parent-Babble. I found most of what Rosemond advocates for here to be well-presented and argued.
I would recommend this one to any new parents.
5 stars.
April 22, 2018
0 stars
Parent-Babble: Can Parents Recover from 208 pages of Bad "Expert" Advice?
The author starts off the book with this: "If a child in the 1950s misbehaved in school, he was punished at school and he was punished again when he arrived home... And the child's parents did not care to hear the child's side of the story (also known as a lie)." (Rosemond, 4).
>> Yes, because the child is 100% automatically lying! Kids don't know what they're talking about or what happened in an incident where they were involved. Of course they don't. 😒
"I spent my first through twelfth grades in a state of almost perpetual test anxiety, grade anxiety, flunking anxiety, parent anxiety, teacher anxiety, and principal anxiety. That anxiety contributed greatly to my getting generally good grades... Today's kids need more anxiety, not less." (5).
>> Pfft, that is one of the worst comments I've ever read in a parenting book! Kids need more anxiety, guys! Parents, you better get on that and make your kid feel more anxious about everything!
"Despite the occasional rigors of growing up in the 1950s, we boomers were a much happier, sturdier, more self-motivated group of kids." (7).
>> Keep telling yourself that, buddy. You tell your readers that so often I'm beginning to think you're not just trying to convince us, but yourself too!
Every section of the book felt too long and drawn out.
Let's break the review down into sections. (At least the author is organized.)
Authority
Rosemond makes it clear he's 100%-pro-authority. So, to discredit the other side that doesn't love authority, he gave an example of a child who didn't want to get a vaccine, so her mom asked "Has Mommy been bad?". The child said yes. "Does Mommy need a spanking?" The child said yes, and spanked her mother. The author presented this as if it is the normal outcome of not having authority.
Bad Quote #1: "Have no problem saying Because I said so. That is how you can stay out of non-productive verbal warfare with your kids. You pay taxes because the government tells you, and it doesn't have to give you a good reason, right?" (56).
>> ??? Really? The whole point of having a government is that it's FOR the people, and the people are supposed to have some control in it. The government DOES have to have a good reason for taxes, and usually they do...
Self-Esteem
Ohh god. Here it comes. All the misinformation on self-esteem. Time to dissect...
"'Now, raise your hand if you'd prefer to live next door to a person with high self-esteem as opposed to someone who is humble and modest.'" (59).
>> Uh, you can have high self-esteem and be humble? Duh? If you feel good about yourself you don't feel the need to brag or be arrogant. Common sense!
"Male children need masculine fathers who expect them to be responsible, to always do their best." (70).
>>Why can't male children have feminine mothers who expect that? Why is it just male children? Why can't they have feminine fathers who expect that? What???? The author complains of other psychologists claiming things without sufficient research, and then goes and says things like that. Hypocrisy not appreciated!
"As esteem for self goes up, regard for others goes down... One either has high self-esteem or has high regard for others..." (72).
>> Wrong, wrong, wrong. They totally DO go together. When you feel good about yourself, you can treat others well.
"So schoolyard bullies, wife beaters, and others with short fuses have high self-esteem..." (74).
>> Why would someone who truly feels good about themselves feel the need to bully others or hit their wife? Explain this to me, John Rosemond...
"People with high self-esteem tend to overestimate their abilities and are highly desirous of attention and approval... Good judgment and high self-esteem don't seem to go together." (80).
>> What human being doesn't desire attention or approval? Um, okay..
Punishment
"[Kids] don't need to be understood..." (90).
"Without any like examples from role models in their lives, toddlers hit their parents, steal, defy, shout nasty things..." (97).
>> How do you know there are no examples from role models? How do you know what the toddler has seen/experienced?
Toilet
Surprisingly, I generally agree with what Hammond talked about in the Toilet Training chapter. I didn't read through all of it after I agreed with him, but I got the gist of it. Toilet training should be done around age 2, and parents shouldn't make it so emotional and such a big deal. That's what he said summed up - he went into more detail in the book but that's all I'll mention here.
Attachment
"In this day and age, however, children in advanced cultures do not need to be breastfed." (153).
>> So only mothers in "non-advanced" cultures should breastfeed children? Wtf?
Author says child does not need to be breastfed until age 3 for maximum benefit - I disagree
Adoption
I read most of this part, I partially agree and partially disagree. The author mentions that parents are now aware of adopted kids potentially developing RAD (Reactive Attachment Disorder), but he equates some parents being aware of this with ALL PARENTS BEING SUPER ANXIOUS ABOUT IT. He is right that not all adopted kids have huge psychological issues that affect them for life, but there definitely are some issues with attachment and abandonment that adopted kids may have that non-adopted kids wouldn't have.
Spanking
By far the worst part of the book
Author goes and analyzes if the Bible supports spanking or not, because the BIBLE is where you should go for all your parenting advice! He argues that the Bible doesn't suggest you should spank your kids, but that's literally just his interpretation which he thinks is right just because he thinks it.
Rosemond says left-wingers aren't willing to compromise on their anti-spanking opinions in his experience, but Christian right-wingers are more willing to "accept a softened position regarding spanking, one that is more in keeping with proper biblical exegesis." (188). Yeah, that's right - gotta follow the Bible! 😡
"Baumrind concludes that the occasional spanking serves as a safety valve of sorts, venting off parental emotions that might otherwise build up to explosive, even abusive intensity." (191).
>> Jeez, if parents are having 'explosive, even abusive intensity' outbursts, they need to figure out what's going on and get some serious help. Using spanking as an in-between for that isn't healthy.
Any sources/people the author agrees with are unbiased, but any sources he disagrees with are not... Examples:
a) "Society for Research in Human Development (SHRD), a supposedly unbiased academic body" (196).
b) "I rely primarily on the excellent, unbiased research done by Robert Larzelere and Diana Baumrind." (201).
>> Yes, the 'excellent, unbiased research' that conveniently agrees with what YOU think!
"Holden goes on to say that spanking "does not promote positive, warm, and respectful relationships in schools or families." Funny--I know plenty of parents who spank who appear to have very positive relationships with their kids, and the kids respect them." (197).
>> So, someone says SPANKING doesn't promote positive/warm/respectful relationships, which is true. The author says, "Oh, I know parents who spank their kids! And they have a positive relationship!" Seriously. Holden was saying the ACTION of SPANKING doesn't promote those kind of relationships, which is correct. Those kids may still supposedly have a 'positive' relationship with their parents, but if the kids were actually respectful, why were they getting spanked in the first place?
Author references the Bible about spanking. Gives the example of this great passage:
"Exodus 21:20: Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." He conveniently didn't include the part about slaves being property though.
"Proverbs 23:13: "Do not withhold discipline from your child. If you punish him with the rod, he will not die." He then proceeded to debate the meaning of "a rod" versus "the rod" for 2 pages.
"I cannot be sure the parent will spank properly." (201).
Love how the author never clarified what spanking "properly" constituted.
Author compares bad types of parenting (permissive, authoritarian, authoritative) and then uses the results of comparing authoritarian and permissive to prove his argument when that is just stupid. Compare a GOOD style with all of those and you'll see which comes out on top!
The author uses the research done by these people:
"Larzelere and Baumrind admit there may be some advantage to an occasional spank between eighteen and twenty four months." (202).
>> Yeah guys, spanking a fricking BABY occasionally may have "some advantage". Are you dumb???? What!?
"A spanking is justified in response to belligerent defiance towards a parent or teacher,... hitting a younger sibling..." (202).
>> So when a child hits their (only younger, not older) sibling, they should get hit so they can learn why hitting is bad? Huh? Maybe you should think things through before you write them down. And as you preached, John Rosemond, USE COMMON SENSE!
"Forgiveness is the most important thing. In other words, after the spanking and the follow-up punishment are served, the parent forgives..." (203).
>> So the parent spanks and gives a punishment, and then it's the PARENT that gets to forgive?? Wtf #2!
"... is a good example of why today's parents are having so much difficulty doing something that no generation who raised kids before the 1960s thought was difficult at all (despite an occasional bump in the road)." (207).
>> Not at all true.. what parents thought raising kids was a breeze and wasn't "difficult at all"??
Would recommend to...
No one. This book is full of misinformation and old-fashioned principles. The only good thing about it was that it was organized in proper chapters. And also once the author cleverly referenced a John Lennon song.
Parent-Babble: Can Parents Recover from 208 pages of Bad "Expert" Advice?
The author starts off the book with this: "If a child in the 1950s misbehaved in school, he was punished at school and he was punished again when he arrived home... And the child's parents did not care to hear the child's side of the story (also known as a lie)." (Rosemond, 4).
>> Yes, because the child is 100% automatically lying! Kids don't know what they're talking about or what happened in an incident where they were involved. Of course they don't. 😒
"I spent my first through twelfth grades in a state of almost perpetual test anxiety, grade anxiety, flunking anxiety, parent anxiety, teacher anxiety, and principal anxiety. That anxiety contributed greatly to my getting generally good grades... Today's kids need more anxiety, not less." (5).
>> Pfft, that is one of the worst comments I've ever read in a parenting book! Kids need more anxiety, guys! Parents, you better get on that and make your kid feel more anxious about everything!
"Despite the occasional rigors of growing up in the 1950s, we boomers were a much happier, sturdier, more self-motivated group of kids." (7).
>> Keep telling yourself that, buddy. You tell your readers that so often I'm beginning to think you're not just trying to convince us, but yourself too!
Every section of the book felt too long and drawn out.
Let's break the review down into sections. (At least the author is organized.)
Authority
Rosemond makes it clear he's 100%-pro-authority. So, to discredit the other side that doesn't love authority, he gave an example of a child who didn't want to get a vaccine, so her mom asked "Has Mommy been bad?". The child said yes. "Does Mommy need a spanking?" The child said yes, and spanked her mother. The author presented this as if it is the normal outcome of not having authority.
Bad Quote #1: "Have no problem saying Because I said so. That is how you can stay out of non-productive verbal warfare with your kids. You pay taxes because the government tells you, and it doesn't have to give you a good reason, right?" (56).
>> ??? Really? The whole point of having a government is that it's FOR the people, and the people are supposed to have some control in it. The government DOES have to have a good reason for taxes, and usually they do...
Self-Esteem
Ohh god. Here it comes. All the misinformation on self-esteem. Time to dissect...
"'Now, raise your hand if you'd prefer to live next door to a person with high self-esteem as opposed to someone who is humble and modest.'" (59).
>> Uh, you can have high self-esteem and be humble? Duh? If you feel good about yourself you don't feel the need to brag or be arrogant. Common sense!
"Male children need masculine fathers who expect them to be responsible, to always do their best." (70).
>>Why can't male children have feminine mothers who expect that? Why is it just male children? Why can't they have feminine fathers who expect that? What???? The author complains of other psychologists claiming things without sufficient research, and then goes and says things like that. Hypocrisy not appreciated!
"As esteem for self goes up, regard for others goes down... One either has high self-esteem or has high regard for others..." (72).
>> Wrong, wrong, wrong. They totally DO go together. When you feel good about yourself, you can treat others well.
"So schoolyard bullies, wife beaters, and others with short fuses have high self-esteem..." (74).
>> Why would someone who truly feels good about themselves feel the need to bully others or hit their wife? Explain this to me, John Rosemond...
"People with high self-esteem tend to overestimate their abilities and are highly desirous of attention and approval... Good judgment and high self-esteem don't seem to go together." (80).
>> What human being doesn't desire attention or approval? Um, okay..
Punishment
"[Kids] don't need to be understood..." (90).
"Without any like examples from role models in their lives, toddlers hit their parents, steal, defy, shout nasty things..." (97).
>> How do you know there are no examples from role models? How do you know what the toddler has seen/experienced?
Toilet
Surprisingly, I generally agree with what Hammond talked about in the Toilet Training chapter. I didn't read through all of it after I agreed with him, but I got the gist of it. Toilet training should be done around age 2, and parents shouldn't make it so emotional and such a big deal. That's what he said summed up - he went into more detail in the book but that's all I'll mention here.
Attachment
"In this day and age, however, children in advanced cultures do not need to be breastfed." (153).
>> So only mothers in "non-advanced" cultures should breastfeed children? Wtf?
Author says child does not need to be breastfed until age 3 for maximum benefit - I disagree
Adoption
I read most of this part, I partially agree and partially disagree. The author mentions that parents are now aware of adopted kids potentially developing RAD (Reactive Attachment Disorder), but he equates some parents being aware of this with ALL PARENTS BEING SUPER ANXIOUS ABOUT IT. He is right that not all adopted kids have huge psychological issues that affect them for life, but there definitely are some issues with attachment and abandonment that adopted kids may have that non-adopted kids wouldn't have.
Spanking
By far the worst part of the book
Author goes and analyzes if the Bible supports spanking or not, because the BIBLE is where you should go for all your parenting advice! He argues that the Bible doesn't suggest you should spank your kids, but that's literally just his interpretation which he thinks is right just because he thinks it.
Rosemond says left-wingers aren't willing to compromise on their anti-spanking opinions in his experience, but Christian right-wingers are more willing to "accept a softened position regarding spanking, one that is more in keeping with proper biblical exegesis." (188). Yeah, that's right - gotta follow the Bible! 😡
"Baumrind concludes that the occasional spanking serves as a safety valve of sorts, venting off parental emotions that might otherwise build up to explosive, even abusive intensity." (191).
>> Jeez, if parents are having 'explosive, even abusive intensity' outbursts, they need to figure out what's going on and get some serious help. Using spanking as an in-between for that isn't healthy.
Any sources/people the author agrees with are unbiased, but any sources he disagrees with are not... Examples:
a) "Society for Research in Human Development (SHRD), a supposedly unbiased academic body" (196).
b) "I rely primarily on the excellent, unbiased research done by Robert Larzelere and Diana Baumrind." (201).
>> Yes, the 'excellent, unbiased research' that conveniently agrees with what YOU think!
"Holden goes on to say that spanking "does not promote positive, warm, and respectful relationships in schools or families." Funny--I know plenty of parents who spank who appear to have very positive relationships with their kids, and the kids respect them." (197).
>> So, someone says SPANKING doesn't promote positive/warm/respectful relationships, which is true. The author says, "Oh, I know parents who spank their kids! And they have a positive relationship!" Seriously. Holden was saying the ACTION of SPANKING doesn't promote those kind of relationships, which is correct. Those kids may still supposedly have a 'positive' relationship with their parents, but if the kids were actually respectful, why were they getting spanked in the first place?
Author references the Bible about spanking. Gives the example of this great passage:
"Exodus 21:20: Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." He conveniently didn't include the part about slaves being property though.
"Proverbs 23:13: "Do not withhold discipline from your child. If you punish him with the rod, he will not die." He then proceeded to debate the meaning of "a rod" versus "the rod" for 2 pages.
"I cannot be sure the parent will spank properly." (201).
Love how the author never clarified what spanking "properly" constituted.
Author compares bad types of parenting (permissive, authoritarian, authoritative) and then uses the results of comparing authoritarian and permissive to prove his argument when that is just stupid. Compare a GOOD style with all of those and you'll see which comes out on top!
The author uses the research done by these people:
"Larzelere and Baumrind admit there may be some advantage to an occasional spank between eighteen and twenty four months." (202).
>> Yeah guys, spanking a fricking BABY occasionally may have "some advantage". Are you dumb???? What!?
"A spanking is justified in response to belligerent defiance towards a parent or teacher,... hitting a younger sibling..." (202).
>> So when a child hits their (only younger, not older) sibling, they should get hit so they can learn why hitting is bad? Huh? Maybe you should think things through before you write them down. And as you preached, John Rosemond, USE COMMON SENSE!
"Forgiveness is the most important thing. In other words, after the spanking and the follow-up punishment are served, the parent forgives..." (203).
>> So the parent spanks and gives a punishment, and then it's the PARENT that gets to forgive?? Wtf #2!
"... is a good example of why today's parents are having so much difficulty doing something that no generation who raised kids before the 1960s thought was difficult at all (despite an occasional bump in the road)." (207).
>> Not at all true.. what parents thought raising kids was a breeze and wasn't "difficult at all"??
Would recommend to...
No one. This book is full of misinformation and old-fashioned principles. The only good thing about it was that it was organized in proper chapters. And also once the author cleverly referenced a John Lennon song.
September 11, 2018
Good stuff. Have to agree with everything. My only complaint is that Rosemond does come on a bit harsh and confrontational until you actually read what he's truly saying. That all makes sense.
June 24, 2017
As both a parent of four children between 1 and 7, and a teacher of children, parenting is often on my mind. Recently I viewed a YouTube clip called How to get kids to listen which features John Rosemond, a psychogist from the US. This lead me to order some of his books from the local library, and I am glad I did.
In Parent Babble, Rosemond argues that since the 1960s 'progressive' psychologists and therapists have encouraged parents and society to move away from traditional child rearing and move toward what Rosemond describes as postmodern psychological parenting. Unfortunately a lot of the advice out there is ultimately unsupported by scientific research. It is just 'babble.' Rosemond summarises some of the areas where a lot of 'babble' espoused, and shows that ultimately this veering off the well-worn parenting path in the 1960s has been detrimental to our children and our society.
The first area of babble is authority. He focuses on psychologist Thomas Gordon who wrote Parent Effectiveness Training in 1970. At the core of Gordon’s ideology was that relationships based on authority are wrong, immoral and unjust. He proposed the creation of democratic families in which parents and children coexisted as emotional, social and intellectual equals. To anyone remotely sane and even tangentially acquainted with children, this should be immediately discarded as arrant nonsense. Unfortunately however, many parents have been brain-washed by the spirit of the age and taken on board these concepts. Parents today often negotiate with their children and do not feel comfortable with exercising authority over them. Gordon’s democratic style of parenting is not backed up by scientific evidence. Research by psychologist Diana Baumrind has shown through longitudinal studies that authoritative parents produce children who score the highest on scales of adjustment and well-being. They are happier, possess better coping skills, are less prone to emotional difficulties, do better in school, and enjoy better relationships.
So how do we take authority back in our families? Rosemond argues that we should be decisive. Do not ask your five year old what he wants to eat for dinner or where he wants to sleep. Wear your authority. Learn to communicate expectations clearly with an economy of words. Make your child do chores. Be prepared to say, “Because I said so” and penalize misbehaviour.
A second area of babble is self-esteem. Here Rosemond looked at family counselor Dorothy Briggs who introduced the concept of self-esteem to American parents through her seminars and book Your Child’s Self-Esteem. Brigg’s argument was that self-esteem is a child’s greatest need, and that almost all of society’s ills are a result of low self-esteem. Once again, the research shows that this is utter poppycock. Research done since 1990 shows that those with high esteem generally have a low regard for others. Roy Baumeister a professor of Florida State University has reviewed the literature on self-esteem and concluded that self-esteem does not improve grades, enhance career achievement, lower alcohol use or reduce violence. In fact research tends to indicate that aggressive and violent criminals have very high self-esteem. Instead of trying to boost a child’s self-esteem, we should aim to help our children focus more on how they treat others. Respect for oneself comes from knowing that one can make a valuable contribution to the lives of others.
A third area of babble is in punishment. Punishment has been demonized by many psychologists. For example Thomas Gordon wrote, “In our training programs we try to help parents see that children don’t really misbehave…..adults say a child misbehaves whenever some specific action is judged as contrary to how the adult thinks the child should behave. Then there is the best-seller The Crime of Punishment by Karl Menninger. Rosemond on the other hand argues that children are naturally antisocial narcissists and he refers to toddlers as the “Little Criminal.” A child’s natural inclinations should be properly exorcised otherwise the child is likely to grow up as a sociopath. Rosemond’s view fits with a biblical anthropology, and even just a common sense look at children. Even from the perspective of what makes a happy child, we should ensure we punish or discipline our children, since research shows that children who learn to obey authority figures end up much happier.
A fourth area of babble is attachment parenting. This has never really been a thing for me – I’ve just seen it is the realm of the slightly unhinged. Rosemond looks at Jean Liedloff, a cultural anthropologist in the 70s who became convinced that a primitive Stone Age tribe in the Venezuelan jungle reared children better than we do. He seemed to think that this primitive culture represented some kind of human utopia and that Western culture was ruining a child’s pure nature by its child-rearing practices. He argued for constant physical contact with the mother from birth, sleeping with parents in their bed until the child leaves of his own volition, breast feeding on demand until 3, and caretakers who respond immediately to any sign of discomfort. Sounds like a recipe for a selfish brat, and a ruined marriage to me! Although I must admit that the child sleeping in your bed would be an effective form of contraception. But seriously, if this is the way people raise their children, is it any wonder the number of children per woman is lower now than 50 years ago. Who on earth could manage? Rosemond shows how the movers and shakers in the Attachment parenting movement appeal to sentimental emotion rather than research. No unbiased scientifically valid research supports the claims that the above approaches lead to reliable long-term positive outcomes for children.
Attachment parenting flies in the face of a biblical perspective on child raising and the family. It effectively forbids a mother from establishing boundaries between herself and her child, which is essential for her if she is to establish herself as an authority figure for her child. Moreover, a lack of mother-child boundary is detrimental to a child’s ability to learn how to solve his own problems and play by himself. In fact, Burton White a developmental psychologist argues that the primary marker of good health in a three-year old is the child’s ability to entertain himself for an hour or more at a time without asking for adult assistance or attention. Attachment parenting also damages the foundational relationship in the family unit – the relationship between husband and wife. A marriage-centred family unit is in the best interests of everyone in the family.
Rosemond also looks at other issues including smacking (spanking) in which he shows a very balanced and evidence based position, and also toilet training and adoption.
Well worth the read if you want to see how we have got to the point we are at today and some important research into these areas.
In Parent Babble, Rosemond argues that since the 1960s 'progressive' psychologists and therapists have encouraged parents and society to move away from traditional child rearing and move toward what Rosemond describes as postmodern psychological parenting. Unfortunately a lot of the advice out there is ultimately unsupported by scientific research. It is just 'babble.' Rosemond summarises some of the areas where a lot of 'babble' espoused, and shows that ultimately this veering off the well-worn parenting path in the 1960s has been detrimental to our children and our society.
The first area of babble is authority. He focuses on psychologist Thomas Gordon who wrote Parent Effectiveness Training in 1970. At the core of Gordon’s ideology was that relationships based on authority are wrong, immoral and unjust. He proposed the creation of democratic families in which parents and children coexisted as emotional, social and intellectual equals. To anyone remotely sane and even tangentially acquainted with children, this should be immediately discarded as arrant nonsense. Unfortunately however, many parents have been brain-washed by the spirit of the age and taken on board these concepts. Parents today often negotiate with their children and do not feel comfortable with exercising authority over them. Gordon’s democratic style of parenting is not backed up by scientific evidence. Research by psychologist Diana Baumrind has shown through longitudinal studies that authoritative parents produce children who score the highest on scales of adjustment and well-being. They are happier, possess better coping skills, are less prone to emotional difficulties, do better in school, and enjoy better relationships.
So how do we take authority back in our families? Rosemond argues that we should be decisive. Do not ask your five year old what he wants to eat for dinner or where he wants to sleep. Wear your authority. Learn to communicate expectations clearly with an economy of words. Make your child do chores. Be prepared to say, “Because I said so” and penalize misbehaviour.
A second area of babble is self-esteem. Here Rosemond looked at family counselor Dorothy Briggs who introduced the concept of self-esteem to American parents through her seminars and book Your Child’s Self-Esteem. Brigg’s argument was that self-esteem is a child’s greatest need, and that almost all of society’s ills are a result of low self-esteem. Once again, the research shows that this is utter poppycock. Research done since 1990 shows that those with high esteem generally have a low regard for others. Roy Baumeister a professor of Florida State University has reviewed the literature on self-esteem and concluded that self-esteem does not improve grades, enhance career achievement, lower alcohol use or reduce violence. In fact research tends to indicate that aggressive and violent criminals have very high self-esteem. Instead of trying to boost a child’s self-esteem, we should aim to help our children focus more on how they treat others. Respect for oneself comes from knowing that one can make a valuable contribution to the lives of others.
A third area of babble is in punishment. Punishment has been demonized by many psychologists. For example Thomas Gordon wrote, “In our training programs we try to help parents see that children don’t really misbehave…..adults say a child misbehaves whenever some specific action is judged as contrary to how the adult thinks the child should behave. Then there is the best-seller The Crime of Punishment by Karl Menninger. Rosemond on the other hand argues that children are naturally antisocial narcissists and he refers to toddlers as the “Little Criminal.” A child’s natural inclinations should be properly exorcised otherwise the child is likely to grow up as a sociopath. Rosemond’s view fits with a biblical anthropology, and even just a common sense look at children. Even from the perspective of what makes a happy child, we should ensure we punish or discipline our children, since research shows that children who learn to obey authority figures end up much happier.
A fourth area of babble is attachment parenting. This has never really been a thing for me – I’ve just seen it is the realm of the slightly unhinged. Rosemond looks at Jean Liedloff, a cultural anthropologist in the 70s who became convinced that a primitive Stone Age tribe in the Venezuelan jungle reared children better than we do. He seemed to think that this primitive culture represented some kind of human utopia and that Western culture was ruining a child’s pure nature by its child-rearing practices. He argued for constant physical contact with the mother from birth, sleeping with parents in their bed until the child leaves of his own volition, breast feeding on demand until 3, and caretakers who respond immediately to any sign of discomfort. Sounds like a recipe for a selfish brat, and a ruined marriage to me! Although I must admit that the child sleeping in your bed would be an effective form of contraception. But seriously, if this is the way people raise their children, is it any wonder the number of children per woman is lower now than 50 years ago. Who on earth could manage? Rosemond shows how the movers and shakers in the Attachment parenting movement appeal to sentimental emotion rather than research. No unbiased scientifically valid research supports the claims that the above approaches lead to reliable long-term positive outcomes for children.
Attachment parenting flies in the face of a biblical perspective on child raising and the family. It effectively forbids a mother from establishing boundaries between herself and her child, which is essential for her if she is to establish herself as an authority figure for her child. Moreover, a lack of mother-child boundary is detrimental to a child’s ability to learn how to solve his own problems and play by himself. In fact, Burton White a developmental psychologist argues that the primary marker of good health in a three-year old is the child’s ability to entertain himself for an hour or more at a time without asking for adult assistance or attention. Attachment parenting also damages the foundational relationship in the family unit – the relationship between husband and wife. A marriage-centred family unit is in the best interests of everyone in the family.
Rosemond also looks at other issues including smacking (spanking) in which he shows a very balanced and evidence based position, and also toilet training and adoption.
Well worth the read if you want to see how we have got to the point we are at today and some important research into these areas.
July 18, 2017
I had a hard time reading this to start. Not because it was bad but because it went against so many things I have been taught. I was thinking about this book a lot even when I wasn't reading. I finally got behind it when I decided to study our heavenly father and his relationship to us as his children and realized that the recommendations in the book more closely align with how I believe heavenly father is as a parent. I know what I have been doing with my son is not working and realized that some of the issues with my daughter must have stemmed from my incorrect parenting too. I highly recommend this book. I really liked the part where you take time out of reading to physically write down what you want your children to become as adults. It really helps you to rethink how you are doing things to accomplish your goal for your children. I did skip over the potty training chapter because all my children are potty trained and just skimmed over the adoption chapter. The spanking chapter was very interesting and totally surprised me on the direction it went. Next I will be reading "The well behaved child" by the same author, hoping to correct my mistakes with my older children and have a better outcome with my younger children.
December 29, 2019
There is something ironic about a book that tells you to ignore all the experts because THEY are the sole expert and authority on parenting. Never mind the fact that parenting is a nuanced thing, and there isn’t a one-size-fit-all perfect parenting model that fits both parent and child. Nope. John Rosemond has solved it all.
Edit: I had to come back an add on to this review because I’ve been stewing about it all day. 0 stars. Can I give it negative stars? That are some books that are so bad, that they actually have a damaging effect, and this is one of them.
My problem with Rosemond isn’t only that he’s incredibly condescending and dismissive, it’s that the ideas he flouts with “authority” can be incredibly dangerous. Take for example his starting premise that kids in the ‘50s weren’t diagnosed with any problems (depression etc) because parenting was done right and kids were taught respect. You know what else they were taught? That homosexuality is a sin; that women belong in the kitchen; that you shouldn’t trust any non-white person you see on the street. Depression is on the rise because the awareness of homophobia, racism, and sexism are on the rise; they’re talking about openly, rather than repressed and ignored. Children also deal with bullying in so many aspects of their lives (cyber-bullying was NOT a concern in the ‘50s). Not to mention that the kids of today are living in an incredibly nihilistic world. Children are acutely aware and scared for their futures because of the impact of climate change; They understand that capitalism is failing and the hope of them getting a decent job after high school (or owning property one day, or having a pension, etc) is small. Not to mention that the American child has to deal with the potential threat of mass gun shootings on a day to day basis. To ignore all of these environmental and social factors is not only demeaning, but it’s a head-buried-in-the-sand approach that is typical of Rosamond’s Boomer mentality.
So really, my one response I can say to Rosemond (who openly admits throughout the book that he is a boomer) is to say “okay, boomer”.
Edit: I had to come back an add on to this review because I’ve been stewing about it all day. 0 stars. Can I give it negative stars? That are some books that are so bad, that they actually have a damaging effect, and this is one of them.
My problem with Rosemond isn’t only that he’s incredibly condescending and dismissive, it’s that the ideas he flouts with “authority” can be incredibly dangerous. Take for example his starting premise that kids in the ‘50s weren’t diagnosed with any problems (depression etc) because parenting was done right and kids were taught respect. You know what else they were taught? That homosexuality is a sin; that women belong in the kitchen; that you shouldn’t trust any non-white person you see on the street. Depression is on the rise because the awareness of homophobia, racism, and sexism are on the rise; they’re talking about openly, rather than repressed and ignored. Children also deal with bullying in so many aspects of their lives (cyber-bullying was NOT a concern in the ‘50s). Not to mention that the kids of today are living in an incredibly nihilistic world. Children are acutely aware and scared for their futures because of the impact of climate change; They understand that capitalism is failing and the hope of them getting a decent job after high school (or owning property one day, or having a pension, etc) is small. Not to mention that the American child has to deal with the potential threat of mass gun shootings on a day to day basis. To ignore all of these environmental and social factors is not only demeaning, but it’s a head-buried-in-the-sand approach that is typical of Rosamond’s Boomer mentality.
So really, my one response I can say to Rosemond (who openly admits throughout the book that he is a boomer) is to say “okay, boomer”.
April 29, 2021
Really great book, it's kind of a history lesson and a psychology lesson wrapped neatly in a parenting book. A lot of things that I wondered, why in the world did my parents do x, y, and z, it's pretty much all explained here. Pop culture is super influential in how parents parent if they don't think there's any other way of doing it. This is a great read, I'll get a copy probably. My only critique is that sometimes the author has a few leaps in logic that he could have explained better, but overall, very thought-provoking.
April 1, 2022
Impressive book
I highly recommend this book. John Rosemond lays out the facts in an easy to comprehend fashion. And he also backs up the facts with actual research done. Please do not hesitate to read this book. You will be amazed at his insight.
I highly recommend this book. John Rosemond lays out the facts in an easy to comprehend fashion. And he also backs up the facts with actual research done. Please do not hesitate to read this book. You will be amazed at his insight.
April 6, 2019
An interesting read...
I agreed with most of what he said!
I agreed with most of what he said!
November 1, 2012
Great analysis of why parents are so confused by all the parenting advice out there today. Especially important is the fact that John Rosemond backs up his information with research and studies done by real experts. Which is something the attachment parenting, self-esteem crowd has not done. Scary to think that we parents have read so many parenting magazines, books and advice assuming it to be truth when in fact most of the advice comes from people who have done no research or studies on how their advice will affect children now and later. All you have to do is look at the behavior and mental health of children and young people now versus 50 years ago. More suicides, lower test scores, more crime, less empathy for others, depression, on and on. The new parenting techniques have not helped and its only going to get worse until parents decide to ignore the "babble" and get back to using common sense and traditional methods of raising children; that have been proven over history to work.
February 14, 2017
I got most of the way through the introduction and nearly chucked my phone into the wall. Within the first 20 pages of the e-book edition, Rosemond paints himself as the one clear-thinking person in his field and plays "woe is me"...then goes on to assert he is not a victim, merely someone who thinks. Spare me, I beg of you. His opinion on spanking is reasonably well-reasoned, but the entire basis of his approach to self-esteem infuriated me.
Let's say it together: SELF-ESTEEM AND HUMILITY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. . I would also like to point out that the author repeatedly alienated Baby Boomers from the younger generations and paints his own generation (the BB generation) as the 'reasonable and clear-thinking' generation, with the rest of us being woefully incapable of critical thought or reasonable insight.
The real clue should have been in the introduction. If you dislike people who yearn for the "polite society of the 50's and earlier" then AVOID THIS AUTHOR.
Let's say it together: SELF-ESTEEM AND HUMILITY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. . I would also like to point out that the author repeatedly alienated Baby Boomers from the younger generations and paints his own generation (the BB generation) as the 'reasonable and clear-thinking' generation, with the rest of us being woefully incapable of critical thought or reasonable insight.
The real clue should have been in the introduction. If you dislike people who yearn for the "polite society of the 50's and earlier" then AVOID THIS AUTHOR.
January 28, 2014
although I agree with a lot of rosemond's views, I didn't like the format of this book. how much of parenting is a science? rosemond discredits a lot of practices saying they are not based on scientific research, yet he offers a method of potty training that's a"variant of a traditional method of toilet training used by mothers in developing countries." there have been a lot of studies done in several parenting issues. a lot of parenting is trail and error and learning from other's mistakes. when it comes down to it, only you know what's best for your child.
Currently reading
January 4, 2013Still reading it, but it is fantastic and the fact that he quotes statistics/studies to support his ideas is important to me as well. Leadership based parenting rather than relationship based parenting says it all. Newer is not always better. Thanks John Rosemond, once again, I am already a huge fan!
Want to read
March 30, 2016Looks good. Plan to read, someday!
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews